Have Scientists Discovered a Way of Peering Into the Future?

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

The stastical changes towards order and not done subjectively. They are done using maths..

purp..

a reply to: purplemer

What an intriguing find...! Well there is always a reason for everything in this Universe we live in. IMHO... What the reason is for this I do not know. Need to read a little more first...

Thanks for sharing...

noosphere.princeton.edu...

Here more info GCP

a reply to: Jakal26

However, I have always felt that there is a "core experience" being had here amongst us all

I agree.. I feel there is something we all share and we all inflence through our thought...

purp..

Interesting find.
I do think global or mass consciousness exists, as in, if many are thinking or emoting the same thing at the same time.

If that is the case, then one can only wonder if the sept 11 attacks being registered four hours prior to the event, it may imply many ( a vast amount ) knew of this plan. Those in the know might have been repeating to others, ok it's starting now. We are set to go. Or however this was going down.

In Diana's case, her death affected many. The world was indeed feeling very sad.

The tsunami was 24 hours and most of us know animals sense things and maybe it was them who set the generators off. Or birds flying over and fish in the ocean noted the incoming wave or tectonic shifts and alerted other animals on the ground to get away. Who knows. Having said that I would be highly suspicious it's intent is an interesting way to be psychic and instead be scientific proof our conscience can be altered, but how? They will begin a new study to figure that one out. Except I think they have by way of propaganda, the Internet etc.

The same happened with the Asian Tsunami. Twenty four hours before the tragedy unfolded, the characteristic shift in the pattern of numbers began. Curiously, it was at around this time that animals in the path of the tsunami began fleeing for their lives. Very few animals were killed in the tragedy, as you may remember, leading some to ask whether they had somehow foreseen the disaster.

In 1998 he gathered together scientists from all over the world to try and understand the phenomena. They, too, were stumped and resolved to extend and deepen Jahn and Nelson’s work. The Global Consciousness Project was born.


Since then, the project has expanded massively. A total of 65 Eggs (as the generators have been named) in 41 countries have now been recruited to act as the ‘eyes’ of the project. And the results have been startling and inexplicable in equal measure. The Eggs not only ‘sensed’ the moment that Princess Diana was buried, but also the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the Kursk tragedy and America’s hung election of 2000. The Eggs also regularly detect huge global celebrations such as New Year’s Eve. Even more bizarrely, they sense the celebrations as they sweep through the Earth’s different time zones.


The project threw up its greatest enigma on September 11th 2001. As the world stood still and watched the horror of the terrorist attacks unfold across New York, something strange was happening to the Eggs. Not only did they register the event as it happened, but the characteristic shift in the pattern of numbers began four hours before the two planes hit the Twin Towers.

Roger Nelson Blog

Updated September 7-2014

For more on this
The Global Consciousness Project

YouTube

a reply to: violet

Thanks for input to thread and the video. I did not know that they record postive events too and they follow time zones!....

I think it is becoming clear that our minds have an effect on the world that we do not understand..

kind regards

purp..

a reply to: violet

Days to hours before events? These events are always assigned in retrospect? The significance of these events is entirely subjective? Makes no useful predictions? Sounds like it's so vague as to be unfalsifiable.

a reply to: GetHyped

There are some 65 random number generators kicking out ones and zeros at high speed. These are situated around the world at different locations. It is not subjective in nature to record a stastical change and if these changes are occuring just before world changing events then it is not vague in nature.

Some fourty nations are looking into these events and consider them to be worthy of further investigation. It is not something i understand but if it is true then the implications are massive...

kind regards

purp..

a reply to: purplemer

I posted an excert of a critique of the supposed 9/11 anomolie on the first page but here's a more detailed critique of the methodology:

The problem is that people outside their lab either fail to reach the same conclusions or find their methodology so flawed that it's pointless to even review the findings. They do publish what they call criticism on their web site, but it's mainly comments and suggestions from their associates. There is not a lot of published criticism of Global Consciousness out there to cite, and one reason is that their theory lacks consistent claims that are specific enough to be tested. Here are two fundamental questions that they must answer and have not:

1. What type of event qualifies as "significant"? They pick events themselves, without any defined criteria. When they choose an event, they fail to test if there are any other simultaneous events in other parts of the world that might override any effect. What happened in Ghana during the OJ Simpson trial? There are no controls over what types of event triggers an examination of the data, and no controls to eliminate prospective events due to conflicting events.

2. What type of effect in the data constitutes a result? Again, no criteria. They maintain no standards for what constitutes a correlation: whether it's a trough or a spike or some other type of anomaly; whether it should happen before, during, or after the event; how long before or after the event it should be found, or what the duration should be. In fact, their "results" are all over the map.

So, as they look for undefined results from undefined events, they still manage to make additional errors in their methodology. Here are some of the most flagrant:

1.The analysis is not blinded in any way. When something happens, they look at their data until they find patterns. Proper analysis would come from isolated statisticians with no reference indicating a timeline on the data, knowledge of what to look for, or knowledge of what world event is being matched.

2. They do not look for alternate causes of their data anomalies. Sunspots? Cell phone calls?

3. They make claims of specific numbers for how they beat chance. Clearly, it's impossible to have any meaningful metrics, given the lack of standards for scoring or choosing events.

4. They make no attempts to falsify their theory. They should be looking for alternate causes of the anomalies they claim to find in the output from their eggs, such as sunspots or electromagnetic interference from other devices. They should be looking for alternate or additional effects caused by human emotions, like errors in calculators or digital watches. Why not cell phones or toasters? If this effect is real, their eggs would not be the only things affected. Whenever a Global Consciousness event happens, there should be well known and well established failures of, or anomalies in, electric and/or computerized devices worldwide. It's improbable that these supposed effects would seek out and affect only one specific application of common hardware components used in many other devices. They do not look at other species besides humans whose emotions might be responsible for the effects. Why not dolphins or whales, or for that matter ants? Most of the living matter on earth is ants, and ants certainly have collective behavior. If collective consciousness did have a measurable affect on hardware, ants are the first place I would look.

One of their biggest claims to fame is the finding of a massive data anomaly, stronger than any other found, at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Radin calculated that it was 6000:1 that this spike in the data was due to chance. Such a finding would make sense if the theory were true (although 9/11 probably didn't bother very many ants). You'll hear this result time and time again if you listen to one of Radin's lectures or read their materials. But you will have to go out on your own to find a dissenting opinion, which can be heard from anyone else who has actually looked at their data. One such person is Jeffrey Scargle of the NASA Ames Research Center, who undertook an analysis on his own time. Scargle's finding on the 9/11 data was "I personally disagree with the conclusion that anomalous effects have been unequivocally established" and "I judge the degree of cogency of all of the results in both (Radin's and Nelson's) papers as low." Scargle attributes their positive findings to the questionable application of an XOR filter to the raw data, the use of a discredited "p-value" test, the lack of blinding, limited choice of likely effects, and a suspicious process that he describes as "data fiddling".

Dr. Edwin May and James Spottiswoode also performed an independent analysis of Radin's 9/11 results. Their conclusion states in part:

We show that the choice was fortuitous in that had the analysis window been a few minutes shorter or 30 minutes longer, the formal test would not have achieved significance... We differ markedly with regard to the posted conclusions. Using Radin’s analysis, we do not find significant evidence that the GCP network’s EGG’s responded to the New York City attacks in real time. Radin’s computation of 6000:1 odds against chance during the events are accounted for by a not-unexpected local deviation that occurred approximately 3 hours before the attacks. We conclude that the network random number generators produced data consistent with mean chance.

skeptoid.com...

a reply to: purplemer
You're welcome. Good thread

I wonder, with my suspicious mind, if they track how we react to events like ISIS for example. Or other events that monitor our emotions.

We most all with certainty have the same reactions. A concert or sporting event for example, shows this as we all , cheer, clap, laugh, scream. Sometimes the reactions of many can trigger those not reacting to react in similar manner. We all experience it when during sadness, a person gives you a hug and can cause you to break down crying, when or preceding this, we were controlling our emotions.

In the case of Diana it was emotions. The tsunami, I don't know, if it registered 24 hours prior. Unless in that case the Earth itself is reacting. Perhaps she wept? I think they need to narrow down what the generators are reacting to.

a reply to: purplemer

I could not see it mentioned, but, How many generators are running at each site?
Shouldn't there be at least three running simultaneously, then if all three show a spike at the same time then it really would be suggestive that an influence had taken place!

To keep it simple let’s assume the experimental setup itself is as claimed in the article, and that the machines themselves are humming along doing nothing other than spitting out an endless stream of randomly generated 1’s and 0’s. A peer review would, of course, confirm this, as well as a few other factors - machines do hiccup from time to time. But, let’s assume that all that stuff has been verified. So far, so good.

Now, after accumulating a few years worth of data we now analyze it for anomolies. Sure enough we find blocks of data that statistically deviate from what we expect to see. The numbers in these blocks appear to be trending “toward order”. Whatever that means. Hmmm... What does that mean? Does that mean that in these particular blocks there’s an overabundance of either 1’s or 0’s? And if so, what does that mean? When taking the entire data set (several years worth) into consideration, do these blocks throw the whole data set off statistically? Or is it just that within the particular blocks being analyzed that the anomoly occurs? What’s the size of these anomolous blocks that were tested? What I’m getting at is, I don’t know how they did their analysis of this long string of 1’s and 0’s. But again, let’s assume that the statistical analysis done, and the results obtained, has been verified as valid and without question.

OK, here’s where I have problems with this study. The article made claims like, “The machine apparently sensed the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre”, and “The Eggs not only ‘sensed’ the moment that Princess Diana was buried, but also the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia”. Oh really? Am I missing something here? Just how did they arrive at these conclusions? Talk about a leap of logic. This was more like a leap into the dark abyss of that place we call the Twilight Zone.

As it was descibed in the article, this was not a scientific study. Not by a long shot. It may make great reading in the tabloids, but not so much in scientific circles. It’s like GetHyped said, it’s strictly subjective in the associations made. You can just as easily make links to any other events you wish. Why would you link random number generation to the collective consciousness? Why not link it to sunspot activity? Or maybe the sexual behavior of ant eaters? Seriously, this just don’t pass the smell test.

Lastly, it’s not the existence of a collective consciousness that I question here. It’s the value and validity of this study as it relates to it.

Starred and Flagged.

This is very important because what this shows is that human intention can cause a random system to behave in a non random way. The sad part about this is that people who are against act like people are just making things up or talking about magic and that's just dishonest.

There's nothing magical going on here. It probably has something to do with non locality and could point to a Quantum Mind.

I have something in front of me called a Mind Lamp and it basically does the same thing. It does this through random event generator and it uses quantum tunneling. Here's more about the Mind Lamp.

The Psyleron random event generator (REG) is a device that converts quantum-level physical phenomena into a digital output. Prevailing theories in quantum mechanics contend that these outputs are intrinsically random and follow a predictable statistical distribution.

However, some scientists have found exceptions. Researchers at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory at Princeton University, for example, have found that the human mind is capable of influencing the output of such an REG to alter its statistical distribution. The mechanism by which this occurs is unknown, and is not based on known physical effects such as electromagnetic fields. The researchers' conclusion was that a subtle yet direct connection exists between the mind and the physical world.

Like I said, I have a Mind Lamp in front of me now and my friends love to play with it when they come over. This isn't magic. It simply shows that the mind can cause a random system to behave in a non random way. This has been documented. Here's another video.



This is something that really needs to be explored instead of being scoffed at.

a reply to: neoholographic


Its a shame that they have had information on mass since the 60s suggesting that we can influence random data.. Only a little but the effect is real.

There is no scientific fauculity to deal with this so it remains on the fringe and looking at it I am sure it is done on purpose to keep certain schools of knowledge supressed...

its a bad game being played..

happy days tto you and thank you for your reply..

purp..

The idea behind The GCP is interesting but I'm not so sure even it's own results support it.

Do a GCP search here and you will see that there have been many times the Dot has shown high order and congruence like were supposed to have happened on 911 and Japan's tsunami, but the day ended like any other non descript day.

The pattern of high order from the number generators on days like 911 seem to be about as random as the numbers themselves.

a reply to: Gibbon

Some random generators are built on the decay of radioactive materials and they've discovered of late that radioactive materials on earth are affected by the sun. There is also thought that the sun might affect volcanic activity on earth (perhaps changing radioactive heat in earths core) so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that random generators might help warn of heightened volcanic activity (tsunami's etc). Human orchestrated events like 9/11 might be harder to explain.